/prog/ - hey lispers, knights of the lambda calculus

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:03

its over; you've lost. C++0x will have lambda functions. 2011 is the year of C++0x and there is not a goddamn thing you can do about it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:08

I don't think anyone has the time to dig for a tiny gem in a huge pile of shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:08

2011, THE YEAR OF THE SEPPLECOCKS DESKTOP

RMS MARK SHUTTLEWORTH ALREADY DECIDED: EMACS AND THE GNU TOOLCHAIN WILL BE REWRITTEN IN COCKS.

LINUX TORNBALLS IS PLANING TO USE THE FABULOUS NEW COCKS' FEATURES IN THE NEXT STABLE RELEASE OF THE LINUX KERNEL.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:22

>>1
GET OUT MY LAMBDA KNIGHTS NAO

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:11

C++ will eventually merge with all other languages and become [u][b]THE ULTIMATE ENTERPRISE LANGUAGE[/u][/b]

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:13

SC++ALA, JAVA++, C++#.NET

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:15

>>5
i.u.b? the underline is not even bold, how can you call yourself a ^B_BCoder?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:34

>>1

4/10

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:01

>>2
Agreed. Sadly, the C++ people will probably keep going with this until they have a bunch of features from other languages all cobbled together, so that way they will have the ultimate justification for not learning/using a language other than C++ (rather than the real reason, which is stupidity).

Actually, I just looked up what the lambda expressions look like. Jesus Christ, what a pile of shit. According to Wikipedia, summing the values of a vector looks like this:

std::vector<int> some_list;

int total = 0;

std::for_each(some_list.begin(), some_list.end(), [&total](int x) {

  total += x;

});

Nasty. I'll stick with Scheme/Haskell, thanks.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:24

>>9
It's not about the syntax!
It's OMG OPTIMIZED!.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:47

>>10
If they were true "optimization" assholes, they probably wouldn't have used a vector.

I'm sure they used ed vi on their Arch Linux machines with 200 megs of RAM, only 3 of which are used to load up their custom window manager written in C that is limited to opening one xterm instance at a time to write and test that example, however.

Also, IHBT and all that.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:53

>>9
[&total](int x) { total += x; }
It's funny; when I was thinking of my own toy language I envisioned a very similar syntax for lambda expressions/closures.
I'd think that a proper committee with educated people could do better.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:57

>>12
If you think about it, anyone who knows a real functional language well enough to suggest something better probably wouldn't fucking bother working on adding lambda expressions to C++ in the first place.

To be fair though, C++'s syntax has always been shitty. They're probably just trying to be consistent at this point.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:59

>>11
I'm sure they used vi on their Arch Linux machines with 200 megs of RAM, only 3 of which are used to load up their custom window manager written in C that is limited to opening one xterm instance at a time to write and test that example, however.
HARDCORE UNIX MASOCHISTS

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 17:07

>>12
To be fair though, C++'s syntax has always been shitty. They're probably just trying to be consistent at this point.
lol'd, good point.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 17:59

this is getting sooooooooooo stupid, every programming language adds bullshit functional programming syntax to make their language more *edgy*

lambda functions- try inline functions bitch
closures- only works with languages with nested functions, a total waste on C family of languages
high order functions- try function pointers bitch

I could go on, but I just want to say IM NOT IMPRESSED BY YOUR FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING SYNTAX ADDED TO PROGRAMMING LANAGUAGE XXX

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 18:09

>>16
And then >>17HBT.

Name: Doctor Racket !RACKET/.HY 2011-01-23 18:10

>>16
You clearly don't understand functional programming.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 19:59

>>16
Hey boy, no more worries, put on a smile for me
Hey girl, no pain no gain is what they say, right
Ok, no need to stress, ok, brush it off your chest
Through the rain there's a brighter day, don't worry be happy

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 20:04

>>16
Go away.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:31

>>16
10/10 I raged more than once.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:51

>>21
What about the ``in Lisp'' guy? He made me rage so much that I'd kill him more than once

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:53

>>22
Forgive my ^B_BCode ~~FAIL~~URE, it's 4:52 AM here.
*more than once

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:01

>>22
Actually I'd be okay with him if he published his fuqin reader macros.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:19

>>24
Once, he did post part of it. But the macro itself was full of more reader macros and stuff, making it useless and unreadable.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:26

>>25
He might as well stop being a dick about it and call it a new dialect (or language). I think what he's doing is kind of cool, but having no public formal specifications and no implementation kinda sucks.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:52

>>26
It is cool, but the language seems a mess (and it's NOT Lisp). Oh well, it's a DSL, it doesn't have to be pretty for everyone.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 5:43

It's funny because C++0x still doesn't have GC.
So lambdas are pretty much useless.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:07

I'm now working through SICP for the second time with C++0x.
You mad, Hans Asperger?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:14

>>28
C++ can't have a garbage collector.
One of the first things we did when learning C++ in university was writing our own memory management. It's one of the things you will have to learn if you want to write efficient software.
When you pick C++ (e.g. when writing for embedded systems or other performance dependant problems) you can't have a garbage collectors because it introduces too much overhead. etc etc IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:24

>>30
>> C++ ... embedded systems
YHBT??? WHBTC!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:29

>>31
Yes that's right, I actually have a job as opposed to most LISP fanatics.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:02

>>32
go fuck yo'ureself

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:25

>>16
closures- only works with languages with nested functions, a total waste on C family of languages

GCC has nested functions, ``faggot''

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:25

>>33
How about I see you in a few years when your parents kick you out and you're washing the front window of my mercedes at some intersection to pay for your cheetos addiction.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:26

>>30
C++ can't have a garbage collector.
Boehm, [spoiler]``faggot[/spoiler! IN YOUR FACE!

Name: FIX, ignore >>36 2011-01-24 7:34

Boehm, ``faggot''! IN YOUR FACE!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:35

>>36
Back to English 101 and BBCode Primer 001, ``faggot''

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:35

>>35
you fucking dream, faggot

enjoy yo'ure basement

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:53

>>30
Boehm, ``faggot''.
And I hate sepples more than you.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:46

>>37
ignore >>36
Back to http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1295874513

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:57

ignore >>42 recursion

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:58

ignore >>44 goto considered harmful

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:58

ignore >>43 goto considered harmful

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:00

ignore >>,,,,--------,,,,,,,-,-,-,-,-,-,--,-,-,,-- shitty thread.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:24

IGNORE MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:29

ignore >>46 done

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-29 9:28

>>31
Ett troll fastnade i båtens trål

hey lispers, knights of the lambda calculus

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:03

2 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:08

3 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:08

4 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:22

5 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:11

6 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:13

7 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:15

8 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:34

9 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:01

10 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:24

11 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:47

12 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:53

13 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:57

14 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:59

15 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 17:07

16 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 17:59

17 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 18:09

18 Name: Doctor Racket !RACKET/.HY 2011-01-23 18:10

19 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 19:59

20 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 20:04

21 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:31

22 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:51

23 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:53

24 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:01

25 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:19

26 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:26

27 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:52

28 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 5:43

29 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:07

30 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:14

31 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:24

32 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:29

33 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:02

34 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:25

35 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:25

36 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:26

37 Name: FIX, ignore >>36 2011-01-24 7:34

38 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:35

39 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:35

40 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:53

41 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:46

42 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:57

43 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:58

44 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:58

45 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:00

46 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:24

47 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:29

48 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-29 9:28

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 14:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:13

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:15

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 15:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:01

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:24

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:53

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 16:59

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 17:07

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 17:59

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 18:09

Name: Doctor Racket !RACKET/.HY 2011-01-23 18:10

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 19:59

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 20:04

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:31

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:51

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 22:53

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:01

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:19

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:26

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-23 23:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 5:43

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:07

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:14

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:24

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 6:29

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:02

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:25

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:25

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:26

Name: FIX, ignore >>36 2011-01-24 7:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 7:53

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:46

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:58

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 9:58

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:00

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:24

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-24 10:29

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-29 9:28